Former Catholic much happier as an Anglican

  • Thread starter Thread starter ReformationPlus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I must disagree about Anglicans not being in apostolic succession. For that same matter, nothing really proves that Romans are.
 
MariaG said:
And the reason for this was?
Click to expand...
That’s what I was wondering.

At the time I was seeking the Truth of Christianity I would have been delighted to find that the Anglican Church was the True Church. To my initial disappointment (no longer) I realised that by the time of Elizabeth I they no longer had valid orders. That meant that their Eucharist is not truly the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Jesus, but merelysymbolic no matter what they believe to the contrary because their priests are not validly ordained.

That was he clincher for me. It was Rome or nothing.
 
MariaG said:
And the reason for this was?
Click to expand...
That’s what I was wondering.

At the time I was seeking the Truth of Christianity I would have been delighted to find that the Anglican Church was the True Church. To my initial disappointment (no longer) I realised that by the time of Elizabeth I they no longer had valid orders. That meant that their Eucharist is not truly the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Jesus, but merelysymbolic no matter what they believe to the contrary because their priests are not validly ordained.

That was the clincher for me. It was Rome or nothing.
 
Again, this is only the statement made by the Roman church. Anglican orders were only declared invalid by Rome.
 
ReformationPlus said:
I must disagree about Anglicans not being in apostolic succession. For that same matter, nothing really proves that Romans are.
Click to expand...
And how will you demonstrate this? Esp. since the Anglicans were the ones (partly) who came ASKING Pope Leo XIII whether they were valid or not? If the Church of Rome doesn’t know, why bother asking?

BTW, would you consider answering my prior question? About comfort?
 
Maxply said:
I guess my question would be, “and why aren’t Episcopalians Catholic?”

Sounds like you found a place you like. I won’t recite the hoary old nut that Episcopalians have the Queen Mother as Pope!
Click to expand...
Orthodox Anglicans are Catholic, but not RC. RCs differ on this point, to be sure. Episcopalians who think that it is possible to ordain females (for example) have left the bounds of orthodox Catholicity, in any sense. Which is why I siad it would not be a good thing to leave orthodox Catholicism in any form, for apostacy.

No Episcopalian has any connection, ecclesiastically, with the British throne. That’s the Church of England you are thinking of. None of the other 38 self-governing Provinces (If which ECUSA is one) that comprise the Anglican Communion are bound by the 1559 Act of Succession, that established the sovereign as the supreme governor of the Church in England. That’s also the reason no Anglican outside of the clergy of the CoE are bound formally by the Articles, as I mentioned above.

All this is hard to follow, I know. Anglicanism, at its simplest, isn’t.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
MariaG said:
Okay.

Again, odd. You post a story. Get a response, yet don’t even really address what the person said.

Then you post again and say it proves your point, but I am not sure how the percieved rudeness of a person proves anything in your original post.

God Bless,
Maria
Click to expand...
I don’t think it was fair to slam the hierarchy of the Anglican Church when the OP didn’t go there and slam the Pope or any of our other beliefs as many non-Catholic posters here do.

Having said that, OP, white may be similar to ivory or mother-of-pearl but when you want white you want white, and ivory and mother-of-pearl simply aren’t white. Ask any bride or any artist 😃

I don’t think in a matter like this where our immortal souls are at stake that near enough is good enough. God love you if you’re happy where you are, and God lead you to where he wants you to be.

But Christ said ‘I am the way the truth and the life’. Nothing about vague concepts like ‘being spiritual’ - every person and their dog claims to be spiritual. There is only one narrow gate and difficult cross-strewn path that leads to eternal life. It behooves you to examine the path you’re on and make sure it’s the right one. Which appears to be what you’re doing 👍

Interesting that you mention the numbers of people leaving Catholicism. Last I heard Catholics are on the brink of outnumbering, if they haven’t already, Anglicans - in England itself. 😃
 
GKC said:
Orthodox Anglicans are Catholic, but not RC. RCs differ on this point, to be sure. Episcopalians who think that it is possible to ordain females (for example) have left the bounds of orthodox Catholicity, in any sense. Which is why I siad it would not be a good thing to leave orthodox Catholicism in any form, for apostacy.

No Episcopalian has any connection, ecclesiastically, with the British throne. That’s the Church of England you are thinking of. None of the other 38 self-governing Provinces (If which ECUSA is one) that comprise the Anglican Communion are bound by the 1559 Act of Succession, that established the sovereign as the supreme governor of the Church in England. That’s also the reason no Anglican outside of the clergy of the CoE are bound formally by the Articles, as I mentioned above.

All this is hard to follow, I know. Anglicanism, at its simplest, isn’t.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
Click to expand...
And practically, even in the UK, it’s the PM who finally selects bishops. The queen is pretty much obligated to appoint upon the PM reccomendation (or abdicate, I suppose). This is an even odder conundrum in the C of E: Lady Thatcher, I believe a Free Methodist, at least at the time, “appointed,” via HM the Queen, one of the “instruments” of unity in the Anglican Communion: Lord Runcie as Archbishop of Canterbury.
 
ReformationPlus said:
I was Roman Catholic my whole life. At age 34 I stepped foot for the very first time into an Episcopal church. I was intigued for weeks reading about it and how very much similar it was to the Catholic church. After a few weeks in the Episcopal church, I was there to stay. My wife at age 23 was baptized Episcopalian after unsuccessfully being able to be baptized Roman Catholic even after 3 months of classes. When she was confirmed by our bishop, I was received into the Episcopal church. There was no need for me to be confirmed because I had been confirmed Roman Catholic and Episcopalians recognize all Catholic sacraments. My family and I attend Holy Eucharist every Sunday and have never been more spiritual. Our priest is amazing and so is our parish family. It prompts me to think quite often as to what really went wrong in my Catholic life?? What has gone wrong for so many that like me left the Catholic church? I must also state too that transitioning from Catholicism to Anglicanism is like comparing white to ivory or pearl. It is very similar. I know we do have some serious differences in belief on a few things, but practice is almost identical during worship services.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you’ve found your spiritual home. Much peace.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
And practically, even in the UK, it’s the PM who finally selects bishops. The queen is pretty much obligated to appoint upon the PM reccomendation (or abdicate, I suppose). This is an even odder conundrum in the C of E: Lady Thatcher, I believe a Free Methodist, at least at the time, “appointed,” via HM the Queen, one of the “instruments” of unity in the Anglican Communion: Lord Runcie as Archbishop of Canterbury.
Click to expand...
Another good reason for the disestablishment of the Church. Not only does disestablishment help to protect rights of dissenters among the populace, it reduces the role of the State in interfering with the business of the Church.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
And how will you demonstrate this? Esp. since the Anglicans were the ones (partly) who came ASKING Pope Leo XIII whether they were valid or not? If the Church of Rome doesn’t know, why bother asking?

BTW, would you consider answering my prior question? About comfort?
Click to expand...
No, the Anglicans didn’t come asking about the validity of their orders. You’re in one my hobby areas (Apostolicae Curae) and that isn’t at all what Halifax and the Abbe Portal tried to do.They asked no question, they wanted to organize a joint commission, something along the lines of the current ARCIC, to discuss areas of possible mutual agreement. It is, however, how Cardinal Vaughan presented the matter to Leo, when he short stopped that effort. It’s a complicated history, and I have studied it more than a little. I recommend ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLU VOID, by (RC) Fr. J. J. Hughes for a good historical look at what happened, starting in 1890, resulting in AC appearing over Leo XIII’s name in 1896.

Trust me.

GKC
 
GKC said:
No, the Anglicans didn’t come asking about the validity of their orders. You’re in one my my hobby areas (Apostolicae Curae) and that isn’t at all what Halifax and the Abbe Portal tried to do.They asked no question, they wanted to organize a joint comminion, something along the lines of the current ARCIC, to discuss areas of possible mutual agreement. It is, however, how Cardinal Vaughan presented the matter to Leo, when he shirt stopped that effort. It’s a complicated history, and I have studied it more than a litle. I recommend ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLU VOID, by (RC) Fr. J. J. Hughes for a good historical look at what happened, starting in 1890, resulting in AC appearing over Leo XIII’s name in 1896.

Trust me.

GKC
Click to expand...
I am always willing to be corrected and so I stand (corrected, that is).

Nonetheless, how will our OP demonstrate that Anglican orders ARE valid (esp. in light of AC) or, even more challenging, that Rome’s AREN’T?
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I am always willing to be corrected and so I stand (corrected, that is).

Nonetheless, how will our OP demonstrate that Anglican orders ARE valid (esp. in light of AC) or, even more challenging, that Rome’s AREN’T?
Click to expand...
Heck, neither he, Fr. Hughes (in his theological, as opposed to historical approach to the matter, in STEWARDS OF THE LORD), nor the great Anglican Dom Gregory Dix, nor even yours truly, can demostrate that, against the authority a RC must give to the proclamation of *Apostolicae Curae * (as re-iterated by then Cardinal Ratzinger a few years ago). Not that a case can’t be made; lots of folk have, both on the theological side of the logic of the ruling, and the political side of how Cardinal Vaughan originated and manipulated the process (and the opposite case can also be made, of course; the best presentation of the RC side is in the then Jesuit Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION). It is also possible to argue that while all this was possibly true back in Edward’s day, it has been overcome by the infusion of Old Catholic/PNCC lines into the Anglican episcopacy, starting in the 1930s. My own priest’s line is directly from a ECUSA bishop with a PNCC co-consecrator, two steps back. So, for a RC, there is no way to “prove” something contrary to that ruling of the Church. Assent is required. I never argue against it.

As to demonstrating that Rome’s orders are not valid, that’s an even more daunting task, one that I wouldn’t undertake either, since they certainly are. Now, if you ask an Orthodox about the validity of Anglican or Roman orders, you’re likely to get someone who will try to make the case you ask for. I pass.

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus *
 
Reformation,

I was a former Protestant minister and am now a Catholic priest. I am much happier as a Catholic. I thank God daily for the grace to come into full communion with Christ’s Church.
 
cestusdei said:
Reformation,

I was a former Protestant minister and am now a Catholic priest. I am much happier as a Catholic. I thank God daily for the grace to come into full communion with Christ’s Church.
Click to expand...
He got banned, Father.
 
GKC said:
Heck, neither he, Fr. Hughes (in his theological, as opposed to historical approach to the matter, in STEWARDS OF THE LORD), nor the great Anglican Dom Gregory Dix, nor even yours truly, can demostrate that, against the authority a RC must give to the proclamation of *Apostolicae Curae * (as re-iterated by then Cardinal Ratzinger a few years ago). Not that a case can’t be made; lots of folk have, both on the theological side of the logic of the ruling, and the political side of how Cardinal Vaughan originated and manipulated the process (and the opposite case can also be made, of course; the best presentation of the RC side is in the then Jesuit Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION). It is also possible to argue that while all this was possibly true back in Edward’s day, it has been overcome by the infusion of Old Catholic/PNCC lines into the Anglican episcopacy, starting in the 1930s. My own priest’s line is directly from a ECUSA bishop with a PNCC co-consecrator, two steps back. So, for a RC, there is no way to “prove” something contrary to that ruling of the Church. Assent is required. I never argue against it.
Click to expand...
That being granted, how does the current practice of ordination of practicing homosexuals and women affect the validity of orders?

Is it possible for a Bishop who attempts the ordination a woman or a practicing homosexual (neither of whom can be validly ordained) be said to have “proper intent” when he ordains heterosexual and/or celibate males? Since his attempts to ordain women and practicing homosexuals shows that he has a defective understanding of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, does it not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top